IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of November, 2016
Filed on 18/12/2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.362/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Vasu.V.R. The Branch Manager
Chathanattuveliyil State Bank of Travancore
C.M.C. – 31, Velorvattom Near Munisif Court
Cherthala – 688 524 Cherthala
(Adv. Maridas John)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant’s son got an admission in the Sha-Shib Aviation Academy for Aircraft Maintenance Engineering course which approved by the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India. Complainant approached the opposite party for obtaining of loan under the Model Educational Loan Scheme formulated by the Indian Banking Association. The opposite party gave an application form to the complainant, but before accepting filled form, they demanded the complainant to complete so many formalities. After giving the documents demanded by the opposite party they received the application but deliberately kept it in the table for a long period without sending it to the regional office. After several months, the opposite party informed the complainant that his application was rejected. When the complainant asked the reason for rejection, they again demanded to bring the passport of the student. Complainant applied to get the passport of the son. On getting the passport opposite party promised to send the application form, but after a few months they again informed the complainant that the application was rejected, since his son has not obtained 60% mark for each subject. But the complainant informed that his son got admission on merit cotta and he gave the certificate for the same to the opposite party. Thereafter complainant contacted the opposite party several times. When he telephoned the opposite party they said that they cannot give loan and he was asked to give loan application to anywhere else. Thereafter complainant filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the inaction on the part of the opposite party in not processing his application. The opposite party stated before the Hon’ble High Court that complainant is not eligible under the Model Educational Loan Scheme and he is eligible only under the SBT carrier loan. If the opposite party stated this while the complainant applying the loan before them he should not have suffer so many difficulties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed forgetting compensation from the opposite party.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant’s son filed a writ petition (WP/19723/2014) before the Hon’ble High Court which was disposed it by giving direction to the opposite party to consider the loan application under SBT carrier loan scheme by accepting the personal guarantee of the petitioner’s father. Against that order the opposite party filed appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench as Appeal No.1608/2014. Hon’ble Division Bench ordered that it shall be open for the petitioner to offer any form of security which shall be considered by the bank in accordance with law. But the complainant failed to proceed as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A13 subject to objection. From the side of the opposite party no oral or documentary evidence produced.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant approached the bank for getting education loan for his son. Ext.A3 is the Application cum appraisal form for education loan submitted by the complainant. Complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service in handling his loan application. By submitting loan application issued by the opposite party the complainant is hiring the service of opposite party and thereby he is coming under the definition of consumer. Hence the complaint is maintainable.
6. Point No.2 & 3:- The complainant’s son got an admission in the Sha-Shib Aviation Academy for Aircraft Maintenance Engineering course. He approached the opposite party for obtaining loan under the Model Educational Loan Scheme formulated by the Indian Banking Association. According to the complainant even though opposite party received the loan application from the complainant, they demanded the complainant to produce several documents by several times. After producing all the documents as required by the opposite party they rejected the loan application stating that they are not able to grand loan. Opposite party filed version stating that as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court, complainant has not produced any security and the complaint is filed suppressing the true facts. It is an admitted fact that complainant filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court as writ petition No.8853/2014 and Hon’ble High Court ordered the complainant to approach the bank and provide sufficient details required by the opposite party within a period of 7 days from the date or order. But the opposite party denied the request of the complainant and stated that he is not eligible under the Model Educational Loan Scheme. However, they offered loan under SBT carrier loan by insisting security of immovable property. Challenging that offer complainant again filed writ petition as 19723/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court.
6. On going through the facts and circumstances, it has come out in evidence that all along the processing of the loan application, the complainant has complied with all the demands made by the opposite party by producing necessary certificates and other papers for availing the loan. Ext.A1 to A13 produced along with the complaint evidenced the same. At one stage the complainant was constrained to approach the Hon’ble High Court for getting a direction to expedite the disbursement of loan. In reply to writ so filed by the complainant, the opposite party for the first time raised an objection denying disbursement of loan stating that the complainant is not eligible for educational loan and he is eligible for carrier loan alone. But for availing carrier loan, bank insisted guarantee for the loan and Hon’ble High Court was pleased to allow the petition with a direction to disburse with personal guarantee. Thereafter according to the complainant he was constrained to approach another bank for the educational loan and State Bank of India allowed the same. Now the complainant’s grievance is that had the opposite party denied the loan application at the first instance itself stating the reason that the complainant’s son is not eligible for education loan and he can avail carrier loan only with immovable property as security, the complainant ought to have dropped his decision to obtain educational loan. The available evidence in this case clearly shows the complainant spent much time and energy to comply with the requirements in the loan application as required by the opposite party, all along the period and at the fag-end all his efforts became in vein due to the adamant stand taken by the opposite party in not diluting the terms and conditions of the particular scheme in spite of the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge to accept the personal guarantee of the complainant’s father and the said direction was again challenged by the opposite party before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and got the said order modified so as ti enable the bank to consider their loan application according to law. The bank has every right to reject the loan application at any stage of the processing. But that must be exercised in rightful manner without making embarrassment or trouble to customer for several months. Exts.A1 to A13 show that the complainant had made so many efforts to furnish the documents as required by the opposite party. Opposite party has no case that they have not demanded any such documents.
7. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, considering the bitter experience from the part of the opposite party to the complainant in dealing with the matters, the mental agony and pain the complainant had suffered and the final disappointment he suffered, this Forum is of opinion that the various steps taken by the opposite party in dealing with the matter finally culminating in total disappointment to the complainant amounts to defect and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party entitling the complainant a just and equitable compensation.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall comply within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - V.R. Vasu (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Validity of approval
Ext.1(a) - Copy of Certificate of approval
Ext.A2 - Copy of free receipt only for prospectus/registration & admission
Ext.A3 - Copy of application cum appraisal form for education loan
Ext.A4 - Copy of certificate from Municipality, Cherthala
Ext.A5 - Copy of certificate from Municipality, Cherthala
Ext.A6(a) - Copy of the certificate from the Counselor, Cherthala
Ext.A6(b) - Copy of the certificate from the President, Card Bank
Ext.A7(a) - Copy of the certificate dated 25.9.2013 from D.K. Kammath
Ext.A7(b) - Copy of the certificate from Tahsildar, Cherthala (Retired)
Ext.A8(a) - Copy of the Passport Seva Project Chellan for Rs.1500/-
Ext.A8(b) - Copy of the
Ext.A9 - Copy of the letter dated 20.1.2014
Ext.A10 - Copy of the judgment in WPC No.8853/2014
Ext.A11 - Copy of the letter dated 16.5.2014
Ext.A12 - Copy of the judgment in WPC No.19723/2014
Ext.A13 - Copy of the judgment in WA No.1608/2014
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
